-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I would love for forts to be able to hide and remove attrition from armies, or act as rallying points for neighbouring armies so you can rise up an army in a safe way to which strike the enemy.
This would also means that being able to bypass front just creates a really possible danger of troops appearing on your back or cutting your supplies
Timing conquests and legislature with my economy, mostly. Through incoming DLC and its different approach to subject nations may change that.
- 2
- 1
You bet
Funny thing, nobody asked for EUV warfare to be as detailed as HoIV. Because, obviously warfare have been completely different in said periods, country-wide frontlines never existed pre-WWI and battleplanner could not be used without heavy adjustments- I doubt that it could be used at all. Yet what people like in HoIV is exactly what could benefit EUV. Manual unit control is the most important thing here and battleplanner comes next, because it solved two most important featues of engaging combat - let AI handle things like defensive fronts and manage important areas\breaches. Up to napoleonic era armies relied upon supply bases, i.e. castles=>forts. And the most effective way to defeat nomads were to build a series of forts to hinder their ability to maneuver and have time to gather a response force, in other words, good old ZOC. EUV stacks were always too valuable to let AI handle them, especially for defensive actions. No sane EUIV player will leave stacks automated when Ottomans moving their armies to chokepoint mountain forts to dogpile on them.
There is a reason behind my hostility to "Victoria 3-like product" and mobile gameplay advocates. In my opinion, those with mentality of "let AI handle war" is the most harmful bunch of feedback providers as they represent the opposite of why Paradox games became so popular - and that is a combination of highly controllable warfare and building of economic basis. But micromanagement was always an intergal part of a core war mechanics.
That's why I see them and Victoria 3 dev team just as some random people who arrive to Starcraft online stage and say "Hey, I know, ordering zerglings around with right clicks was here for a long time, but it is time to move forward and dispose of those archaic mechanics - we think that it is better for the game to handle army control to AI and let player concentrate on the main thing - mineral and vespene gas gathering". Like developers at EA once said "I thing it is a good idea to remove resource gathering and base building from Command & Conquer 4"
P.S. It was super ironic that after release HoIIV was heavily criticesed that its war adn battleplanner system was better fitting to...WWI, rather than WWII.
- 11
- 8
Legislature? You mean when an autocracy and democracy enacts laws exactly ther same way? When you click a button and hope that RNG turns our right? No need or possibility for deals with the opposition or anything. Yeah the political game is really engaging...
- 7
- 2
Dont forget that if you have high enough radicals, passing any law will instantly set in track a revolution with 99% of your provinces against wathever you are pushing, irrelevant of the law you are passing.
- 5
- 1
- 5
Automated warfare i stupid and if left unchecked, it will be the downfall of PDX.
Let use led our armies. That is the most fun part of EU. When you have perfectly set up your [French] Kingdom, amassed wealth and men, fortified your realm, built alliance with key powers (mostly the Ottomans) and are ready to finally cross the Rhine to occupy some minor diocese and plunge the entirety of Christendom into Warfare.
Let the player command his armies as if he was one of the captain-king of the modern period and let the AI crash itself upon your mighty 3 provinces deep Vauban line fortifications.
Let use led our armies. That is the most fun part of EU. When you have perfectly set up your [French] Kingdom, amassed wealth and men, fortified your realm, built alliance with key powers (mostly the Ottomans) and are ready to finally cross the Rhine to occupy some minor diocese and plunge the entirety of Christendom into Warfare.
Let the player command his armies as if he was one of the captain-king of the modern period and let the AI crash itself upon your mighty 3 provinces deep Vauban line fortifications.
- 7
- 5
- 1
But after fighting for 5 years, you will recieve a notice that a treaty port with 20.000 people had been occupied for the entirety of the war, so your government is capitulating effectively now.
- 8
- 1
Veering off-topic here. In-depth discussion of Victoria 3's mechanics without relation to PC are better done in its subforum
- 5
- 2
- 1
Project Caesar : The Ultimate Eighty years War Experience !
That awkward moment you realize you lost half of your colonial empire to a 2 provinces revolt movement of "Gueux des mers" / "watergeuzen" while you were trying to re-occupy their 500s star forts just like the Habsburg did in real life.
fun fact, rebels can only enforce demands if they have unsieged provincesProject Caesar : The Ultimate Eighty years War Experience !
That awkward moment you realize you lost half of your colonial empire to a 2 provinces revolt movement of "Gueux des mers" / "watergeuzen" while you were trying to re-occupy their 500s star forts just like the Habsburg did in real life.
It is directly related to PC because it gathers various mechanics from various PDX games. And it is important that it would take only the best ideas, while avoiding absolytely horrible ones...too broken to be repaired. Some mechanics may be shallow and could shine when tweaked and enchanced but some will not work even with huge effort applied - like Victoria 3-like product cookie clicker "economy" and idiotic warfare
- 3
- 2
Since the map is larger, it would be easier for the player to take a more hands off approach like in HoI4 and only microing for key battles/sieges. Small countries can of course have the player take full control like players do for countries such as Greece, Bulgaria, and the Nethelands in HoI4.
What could be drawn from Vicky 3's warfare is likely apposite enough aye even if Victoria 3's warfare wasn't the subject of OP aye, I was more responding to the comments in things like radical generation and the vote process, which is neither here nor there for PC's warfare. Just trying to make sure folk don't get the thread locked
- 1
If we just exclude the Vicky3 red herring for a moment...
The OP's main point still stands: That the map is so detailed that army automation is going to be necessary.
I don't think there will be enough units on the map to make HOI4 style automation of entire fronts viable. We are like to be controlling dozens units - not hundreds like hoi4, and not a few like EU2.
So its presumably going to be like Imperator army automation, which was.... okay? But it will be very important that the war automation AI is good, and somewhat customisable (otherwise it will feel just like Vicky3 with visible units). So I'd think it would need the ability to provide orders like 'work towards this fort', or 'defend this area', as well as 'just siege everything'.
There is also quite a high risk that certain parts of the automation will cause frustration (looking at you naval invasions).
But the need for automation is an inevitable consequence of having so many provinces that manual control would just become micromanagement hell. Hopefully the team get it right. In any case, war will feel very different from EU5.
The OP's main point still stands: That the map is so detailed that army automation is going to be necessary.
I don't think there will be enough units on the map to make HOI4 style automation of entire fronts viable. We are like to be controlling dozens units - not hundreds like hoi4, and not a few like EU2.
So its presumably going to be like Imperator army automation, which was.... okay? But it will be very important that the war automation AI is good, and somewhat customisable (otherwise it will feel just like Vicky3 with visible units). So I'd think it would need the ability to provide orders like 'work towards this fort', or 'defend this area', as well as 'just siege everything'.
There is also quite a high risk that certain parts of the automation will cause frustration (looking at you naval invasions).
But the need for automation is an inevitable consequence of having so many provinces that manual control would just become micromanagement hell. Hopefully the team get it right. In any case, war will feel very different from EU5.
- 6
- 1
At risk of saying something obvious, I think the whole business of warfare is going to need to be designed to work with this increased level of detail in mind. Army Automation, to whatever degree, is one tool to achieve this, but in some ways I think the desire for automation in eu4, for example, stems from all its game systems coming together to create a situation where mid-to-late-game warfare is difficult for a person to manage. The game balance is such that army sizes explode over the course of the game, economies are able to support many more forts leading to longer siege times, war score generally becomes slower to accrue, the introduction of forced march requires more micro to keep track of reinforcements, the way armies are created and organised, and so on. It all contributes to both wars and gameplay dragging.
Combine with the fact that wars generally feel less rewarding in the late game, as the gain in provinces taken (or other war goals) is quite small relative to a large nation's power, and it's not surprising a lot of people get literal war exhaustion.
I guess this is a roundabout way of saying that while I think some army automation is probably necessary (and welcome, imo), if pdx can get the other game systems right then the need for automation should hopefully be reduced.
- 2
- 1
Project Caesar has about as much granularity as Imperator: Rome. More in certain places like Germany, and less in others like Anatolia/Greece/Italy. As someone with over 2000 hours in Imperator, I never felt the need to use the AI automation for warfare. I certainly do not think the granularity makes AI Automation "necessary" at all.
I can see it being useful if you are in a war that is being fought on multiple continents, so I can give control of my American army to the AI so I can focus on the war raging in Europe, but that has absolutely nothing to do with granularity. I don't think that plays any part whatsoever.
I can see it being useful if you are in a war that is being fought on multiple continents, so I can give control of my American army to the AI so I can focus on the war raging in Europe, but that has absolutely nothing to do with granularity. I don't think that plays any part whatsoever.
- 4
- 3
- 1